Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Welcome to the Business of Green Blog!

By The Editors March 23, 2007 5:03 pmMarch 23, 2007 5:03 pm

Welcome. You’ve landed on a new blog, The Business of Green, which goes live on Monday, March 26, 2007. With “green power” rising on the political and social agenda like never before, IHT correspondents James Kanter and Elisabeth Rosenthal sound off on the major environmental stories of the day — and invite you to have your say, too. We’ll be exchanging ideas that focus particularly on how both companies and consumers are reacting to global warming. Let us know whether you think businesses, politicians and individuals are taking climate change seriously. Give your views on the “clean” technologies and
products that can make a difference. And tell us when you see “greenwash” from big business, rather than responsible stewardship of the planet. Remember, if you’d like your comments reviewed for
publication in the newspaper, please include your full name and the country you’re writing from. We look forward to the most global conversation about “the Business of Green” on the Web.

I am a college student in China. I am very happy to have some comments on the foreign web site. This is my first experience.
about the enviroment protection. In my opinion, every country has paid much attention in the last few years. The destroy of ozone layer, the global warning, the green house effect and so on. I think that the developed country, especially the US, should take more l responsbility about this global issue. As we kown, the US emit about 30 percents of the polltants in the world which largely exceeds others. As the only biggest country, you should take full use of your scientific advantages to exploit the new energy, to elimilate the emition of the pollutant.

It is manifestly obvious from this week’s Budget that Gordon Brown is not taking climate change seriously here, as his ‘green’ tax changes are minimal and will be ineffectual. Equally, the agreement on trans-Atlantic air-travel sends all the wrong signals to the world.

My gut tells me your blog will “grow as fast as the green grass”. The World is ready !

Best Wishes to you both and Congratulations Now for the future.

Sincerely,
Marcia Rouse

P.S. This is true. Years ago while working as a flight attendant at TWA our flight was going to London from St. Louis. At the last minute 2 men came running on board..the flight attendant on the other side of the plane was giving them an unreasonable hard time for nothing. They had brought their cameras on board as if the cameras were newborns, understandably so. I intervened as they were my passengers for the flight and helped them carefully stow them away. Later in the flight, the three of us were chatting up in the aft galley while making the pond crossing in the middle of the night. When I
curiously asked “are you making a movie”? One responded they were “going to do a new pilot for a television show and they were chasing a ‘very bad man'”! He then asked me “do you think the show will be a success”? Immediately my gut responded ” the world needs a show like that, of course it will be a big success”! That man was John Walsh.

Thank you IHT for leading from the front! The crisis of global warming is finally getting the international attention it deserves, and this forum will only serve that need. It is hardly exaggerating to say this is the largest, hardest challenge in the history of humanity.

After the recent report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change //www.ipcc.ch, the Stern review of the Treasury office of the British Government by Sir Nicholas Stern, and the evidence provided in the film and book by Al Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ //www.climatecrisis.net, the argument of whether or not global warming is a reality is largely won. It is only the foot-dragging of the US government that is preventing large-scale action in the country that creates the most carbon and other chemicals that are warming the Earth.

The question now turns to what to do, how quickly can we do it, and what realistic goals to set for reducing greenhouse gases to the levels necessary to prevent widespread environmental, social and economic hardship?

I have heard that the Kyoto Protcol only addresses 10% of the reductions actually needed. I know there is a figure out there of 80% reductions by 2050. But I yet have no concrete sense of what figure the majority of scientists are backing as necessary. I ask that IHT focus on this question most expeditiously.

I respect what you’re doing, but I think we would be better served by a blog about reigning in our lifestyles and expectations–new technologies and economic solutions aren’t necessary if Americans weren’t as lazy and hung up with comfort.

Examples: no non-elderly/non-disabled person has an excuse for not taking the stairs (even if they’re overweight or out of shape; indeed, especially if they’re so). Relatively few people have legitimate excuses for not taking public transportation (convienience is not a legitimate excuse for someone committed to saving the planet).

My point: the environmental crisis is a psychological one, born of a sense of entitlement and the urge to gorge. It is not an economic or technological problem.

Jeff, You raise a key question: By how much do we need to cut carbon to reverse the warming trend, rather than merely slow the pace of catastrophic climate change? Scientists are calling for vast curbs in the levels of carbon dioxide emissions by mid-century to stop uncontrolled warming. Yet we remain far away from widespread take-up of renewable energy to meet those goals, and we are even still trying to work out what kind of pollution-busting tools â€” think of the
controversy over carbon “offsets” â€” are the most effective. Even so, negotiations are underway to extend the Kyoto agreement and there are upbeat signs that politicians in the United States are ready to jump into the driving seat. As the New York Times and International Herald Tribune pointed out in an editorial this week, the debate has come a long way compared to when President Bill Clinton was unable to find five senators willing to ratify the modest 1997 Kyoto treaty, which called for a 7 percent reduction below 1990 levels. Last week, Representative Henry Waxman of California signed up 127 co-sponsors for a bill that would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

I always think of the Star Trek episode where they encounter a culture far more technologically advanced than humanity that chooses to live very simply–like horse and cart simple. The focus is on science as knowledge, rather than as means to develop unnecessary gadgets.

I think you should call attention to the discipline of ecological economics at some point, to balance out what is sure to be an over-emphasis on traditional, human-centered economic analysis.

I am a New York City person, and a couple years ago I decided to eventually pursue a Master’s degree in Civil/Environmental Engineering (haven’t started yet), because I see the environment as the most critical issue today. It’s more important than bird flu by far: the bubonic plague ravaged the world repeatedly but was eventually defeated by medical science and civil engineering. The environment is what all humans depend upon, every day, to survive, and it’s high time we acknowledged that we’re having a negative impact on it.

Humans in the hunter/gatherer stage always messed up their homes so much they had to be nomads to get away from parasites, smells, etc. We no longer have that option as a species (try evacuating the earth).

Please keep this blog going as long and far-reaching as you can, it’s durned important to us all. The more globally this discussion can evolve, the better, so maybe if there were various non-English threads running concurrently, with some posts translated and cross-referenced, it would help with global representation (I realize this is difficult and expensive, maybe linking up to similar foreign blogs and establishing shared translation would do it).

I’d like to answer the question above, “whether you think businesses, politicians and individuals are taking climate change seriously”.

Businesses: if so, they are hotly denying it because they know it will reduce their profits, and their profit margin is far more important to Business people than their great-great grandchildren (evidently).

Politicians: Liberals are starting to, conservatives are also in heated denial (business lobbyist effect?), and dictators don’t care at all.

Individuals: are taking it more seriously than the other two groups, and it has to start somewhere. In New York people are starting to instinctively recycle ‘garbage’, but I do not see most large businesses doing anything remotely as effective.

I’m disappointed by the way everyone seems to accept the rise in temperature as being caused by rising levels of co2,when half of the global warming in the last century took place between 1890 and 1945. Co2 levels began to rise in 1945 and continue to rise, although global temeratures have dropped, showing once again that rising levels of co2 are an effect, not a cause, of global warming. Also disappointing to me is the faith in some “consensus”. To begin with, scientific facts are not decided by a vote, even if such a consensus existed, which it does not. I sincerely hope that this blog will reflect that.
Arthur Koch

@ comment 10: The US will be surpassed by China by 2009 in CO2 emissions and China is already the biggest emitter of mercury, lead and organic chemicals.

As for the rest of my contribution, market forces like carbon trading are in the end…worthless. Our environment is a closed room. Moving the sources of pollution around does not remove them from the room or reduce their output. The people who concocted this scheme are the same types who generated the sub-prime lending bubbles (both housing and corporate) and the IT bubble.

Arthur, where are you getting your figures from? First you say ‘global temperatures have dropped’, then attribute ‘rising levels of co2′ as an ‘effect…of global warming’? Very confusing. Here is what the IPCC says, from //www.bbc.co.uk‘s ‘Climate Change at a Glance':

“The world heated up by about 0.6 degrees last century, and the 1990s were the warmest decade on record, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says.”

Thanks to nanheyangrouchuan for updating me on the speed of CO2 increase in China.

On the subject of how much to reduce green house gases and how quickly, a citizen’s action group (www.stepitup2007.org) has said that several groups are all supporting ‘80% reduction by 2050′. Here is what one top scientist I emailed said about this goal: “that is an ambitious goal — if achieved globally, atmospheric CO2 would probably begin to decline — more plausible is a reduction of that order in developed countries – targets will have to be adjusted as more is learned, but it is clear that big reductions are needed and that is where we should aim”.

Jeff- You’d better read my letter a bit better: I said nothing about global temeratures dropping. My figures come from the Fraser Institute and Lord Monckton’s analysis of the recent IPCC summary of their forthcoming report. In any case, my point still stands; warming precedes higher levels of CO2.This point was emphasized by Dr. Tim Patterson, testifying before the Commons Committee on Environment, when he cast doubt on the effect of CO2 on the climate. As for the IPCC as purveyor of factual evidence, it needs to better its credibility; first the failed “hockey stick” (still not repudiated by them), and by this dodgy method of issuing a summary months before the publication of the report proper (see above), which comes out in May.

What's Next

About

How are climate change, scarcer resources, population growth and other challenges reshaping society? From science to business to politics to living, our reporters track the high-stakes pursuit of a greener globe in a dialogue with experts and readers.